2013 (11) TMI 86 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport Service Waiver of Pre-deposit Extended Period of Limitation Held that - The show cause notice issued invoked the extended period of limitation which is, prima-facie unsustainable for the reason that the Revenue authorities, on an identical issue has issued a show cause notice invoking the extended period, in that case also for reversing the amount of cenvat credit taken during the period 2005-06 - To that extent, prima facie, appellants contention seems to be on strong grounds. Within the limitation period, some liability arises for which the issue needs to be gone into detail as to what would be place of removal in the contract and whether the appellant was responsible for the goods cleared and delivered to their purchasers - All these issues need deeper consideration and can be considered at the time of final disposal of appeal - the appellant has not made out a case of complete waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved inasmuch as the same is within the limitation period - the appellant is directed to further deposit an amount of Rupees twenty lakhs upon such submission rest of the depsoits to be waived till the disposal Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of a specific amount along with interest and penalty.
2. Validity of the demand for reversal of cenvat credit on GTA services.
3. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
4. Determination of place of removal in the contract.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount along with interest and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The amounts were related to the appellant availing cenvat credit on GTA services, which the authority deemed liable under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued for reversing the cenvat credit was hit by limitation, citing a previous case with a similar issue. The appellant contended that the demand within the limitation period was unsustainable, emphasizing that the contract was on a FOR destination basis, making the purchaser responsible until goods reached their destination.

3. The tribunal noted that the show cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation, which seemed unsustainable since a similar notice was issued previously. The tribunal found the appellant's contention strong regarding the limitation period and the responsibility for goods delivery, requiring further detailed consideration at the final disposal of the appeal.

4. The tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount within a specified period, considering that the demand fell within the limitation period. The waiver of pre-deposit for the remaining amounts was allowed, with recovery stayed until the appeal's final disposal. Compliance was to be reported to the Deputy Registrar for further proceedings.

This judgment delves into the intricacies of the limitation period, the responsibility for goods delivery, and the waiver of pre-deposit in the context of cenvat credit on GTA services, providing a detailed analysis and direction for further proceedings.